This article discusses critical issues and opportunities going forward in nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety (nanoEHS) research from the perspective of Federal Government Agency participants in the United States (U.S.) National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) interagency Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Working Group (NEHI). NEHI is responsible for coordination of Federal Science Agency nanoEHS research. As participants in NEHI, we examine these critical issues from an integrated, transdisciplinary perspective, noting examples of impactful research efforts that are advancing knowledge in these areas. Major themes identified include detection, measurement, and characterization of real-world nanomaterial exposures, understanding the biological transformation of nanomaterials and their potential (eco) toxicological implications, understanding the landscape of nanotechnology-enabled products in commerce, and advancing the EHS knowledge infrastructure related to nanomaterials and nanotechnology. Significant investments in nanoEHS research over two decades have led to establishment of a unique and diverse multidisciplinary, multisector community of practice. These investments must be leveraged and adapted not only to future nanotechnology, but also to use as a model for accelerating acquisition of safe and reliable risk information for tomorrow's emerging technologies for a more sustainable and competitive world. © 2023 The Royal Society of Chemistry.

The on-going COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a dramatic increase in the use of N95 respirators, barrier face coverings, disposable gloves, gowns, and other measures to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. For example, population-based estimates suggest that over seven billion facemasks, which translates to 21,000 tons of synthetic polymer, are used daily in the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Hantoko et al. 2021). After use, these products end up in the synthetic polymer environmental waste stream and contribute to the growing problem of plastic pollution at an estimated rate of about 40% of plastic demand (Lau et al. 2020). Plastic litter in the environment breaks down to plastic fragments, which have been found in air, water, and food (Gigault et al. 2018; Mitrano 2019; Lim et al. 2021). Small particles of plastics are often referred to as microplastics (plastic particles with any dimension between 1 micrometer and 1,000 micrometers [ISO 2020]) and nanoplastics (plastic particles smaller than 1 micrometer [ISO 2020]). Polyethylene and polypropylene are the most commonly found types of plastic in aquatic environments and soil matrices (Yang et al. 2021). Nano- and microplastics (NMP) can be formed incidentally through environmental and mechanical degradation. Incidental NMP can be also generated through condensation of molecular species, for example, during heating or burning of plastics. Different pathways for generation of these particles produces incidental NMP of varying morphology and chemical composition, thus leading to varying biological activity ranging from activation of transient inflammatory response and interference with physiological functions to immunosuppression and carcinogenesis (Huaux 2018; Prata 2018). Manufactured NMP can be made intentionally for use in industrial processes, for example, as feedstock for powder-bed and multi-jet fusion 3D printers.

The future of work embodies changes to the workplace, work, and workforce, which require additional occupational safety and health (OSH) stakeholder attention. Examples include workplace developments in organizational design, technological job displacement, and work arrangements; work advances in artificial intelligence, robotics, and technologies; and workforce changes in demographics, economic security, and skills. This paper presents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Future of Work Initiative; suggests an integrated approach to address worker safety, health, and well-being; introduces priority topics and subtopics that confer a framework for upcoming future of work research directions and resultant practical applications; and discusses preliminary next steps. All future of work issues impact one another. Future of work transformations are contingent upon each of the standalone factors discussed in this paper and their combined effects. Occupational safety and health stakeholders are becoming more aware of the significance and necessity of these factors for the workplace, work, and workforce to flourish, merely survive, or disappear altogether as the future evolves. The future of work offers numerous opportunities, while also presenting critical but not clearly understood difficulties, exposures, and hazards. It is the responsibility of OSH researchers and other partners to understand the implications of future of work scenarios to translate effective interventions into practice for employers safeguarding the safety, health, and well-being of their workers.

Novel materials with unique or enhanced properties relative to conventional materials are being developed at an increasing rate. These materials are often referred to as advanced materials (AdMs) and they enable technological innovations that can benefit society. Despite their benefits, however, the unique characteristics of many AdMs, including many nanomaterials, are poorly understood and may pose environmental safety and occupational health (ESOH) risks that are not readily determined by traditional risk assessment methods. To assess these risks while keeping up with the pace of development, technology developers and risk assessors frequently employ risk-screening methods that depend on a clear definition for the materials that are to be assessed (e.g., engineered nanomaterial) as well as a method for binning materials into categories for ESOH risk prioritization. The term advanced material lacks a consensus definition and associated categorization or grouping system for risk screening. In this study, we aim to establish a practitioner-driven definition for AdMs and a practitioner-validated framework for categorizing AdMs into conceptual groupings based on material characteristics. Results from multiple workshops and interviews with practitioners provide consistent differentiation between AdMs and conventional materials, offer functional nomenclature for application science, and provide utility for future ESOH risk assessment prioritization. The definition and categorization framework established here serve as a first step in determining if and when there is a need for specific ESOH and regulatory screening for an AdM as well as the type and extent of risk-related information that should be collected or generated for AdMs and AdM-enabled technologies.

Additive manufacturing (AM), often called 3-D printing, is becoming a prominent part of modern industry due to its usefulness in accelerating product development and prototyping, as well as producing complex and precision parts.[1] AM is a collection of processes for creating products by selectively joining small amounts of material based on a computer-aided design file.[2,3] This approach yields several advantages to industry: shortened production cycles, reduced tooling costs, reduced waste material, easier product customization, novel design options, and new possibilities in distribution and fulfilment.[3–7] AM has already impacted automotive, aerospace, medical device, and electronics manufacturing;[1,4] is expected to grow in biomedical applications;[8,9] and has found its way into construction,[10] offices, schools, and libraries.[11,12]

Emerging and novel technologies, materials, and information integrated into increasingly automated and networked manufacturing processes or into traditional manufacturing settings are enhancing the efficiency and productivity of manufacturing. Globally, there is a move toward a new era in manufacturing that is characterized by: (1) the ability to create and deliver more complex designs of products; (2) the creation and use of materials with new properties that meet a design need; (3) the employment of new technologies, such as additive and digital techniques that improve on conventional manufacturing processes; and (4) a compression of the time from initial design concept to the creation of a final product. Globally, this movement has many names, but "advanced manufacturing" has become the shorthand for this complex integration of material and technology elements that enable new ways to manufacture existing products, as well as new products emerging from new technologies and new design methods. As the breadth of activities associated with advanced manufacturing suggests, there is no single advanced manufacturing industry. Instead, aspects of advanced manufacturing can be identified across a diverse set of business sectors that use manufacturing technologies, ranging from the semiconductors and electronics to the automotive and pharmaceutical industries. The breadth and diversity of advanced manufacturing may change the occupational and environmental risk profile, challenge the basic elements of comprehensive health and safety (material, process, worker, environment, product, and general public health and safety), and provide an opportunity for development and dissemination of occupational and environmental health and safety (OEHS) guidance and best practices. It is unknown how much the risk profile of different elements of OEHS will change, thus requiring an evolution of health and safety practices. These changes may be accomplished most effectively through multi-disciplinary, multi-sector, public-private dialogue that identifies issues and offers solutions.

The materials and methods used in manufacturing are changing rapidly and dramatically. So are the business management and product delivery models that have been part of the global manufacturing economy for decades. An informed and proactive industrial hygiene community can act now to embrace and influence the new challenges and opportunities that advanced manufacturing is creating. The current, traditional model of manufacturing includes large-scale production facilities that ship finished goods to strategically placed warehouses and distribution centers, where they are held until orders for these goods are received; the evolving 21st-century manufacturing model focuses on producing smaller, more distributed ''batches" of products or individual product components that meet specific customer demands.

Pulmonary toxicity studies on carbon nanotubes focus primarily on as-produced materials and rarely are guided by a life cycle perspective or integration with exposure assessment. Understanding toxicity beyond the as-produced, or pure native material, is critical, due to modifications needed to overcome barriers to commercialization of applications. In the first series of studies, the toxicity of as-produced carbon nanotubes and their polymer-coated counterparts was evaluated in reference to exposure assessment, material characterization, and stability of the polymer coating in biological fluids. The second series of studies examined the toxicity of aerosols generated from sanding polymer-coated carbon-nanotube-embedded or neat composites. Postproduction modification by polymer coating did not enhance pulmonary injury, inflammation, and pathology or in vitro genotoxicity of as-produced carbon nanotubes, and for a particular coating, toxicity was significantly attenuated. The aerosols generated from sanding composites embedded with polymer-coated carbon nanotubes contained no evidence of free nanotubes. The percent weight incorporation of polymer-coated carbon nanotubes, 0.15% or 3% by mass, and composite matrix utilized altered the particle size distribution and, in certain circumstances, influenced acute in vivo toxicity. Our study provides perspective that, while the number of workers and consumers increases along the life cycle, toxicity and/or potential for exposure to the as-produced material may greatly diminish.

In January 2007, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) conducted a field study to evaluate process specific emissions during the production of ENMs. This study was performed using the nanoparticle emission assessment technique (NEAT). During this study, it was determined that ENMs were released during production and cleaning of the process reactor. Airborne concentrations of silver, nickel, and iron were found both in the employee's personal breathing zone and area samples during reactor cleaning. At the completion of this initial survey, it was suggested that a flanged attachment be added to the local exhaust ventilation system. NIOSH re-evaluated the facility in December 2011 to assess worker exposures following an increase in production rates. This study included a fully comprehensive emissions, exposure, and engineering control evaluation of the entire process. This study made use of the nanoparticle exposure assessment technique (NEAT 2.0). Data obtained from filter-based samples and direct reading instruments indicate that reactor cleanout increased the overall particle concentration in the immediate area. However, it does not appear that these concentrations affect areas outside of the production floor. As the distance between the reactor and the sample location increased, the observed particle number concentration decreased, creating a concentration gradient with respect to the reactor. The results of this study confirm that the flanged attachment on the local exhaust ventilation system served to decrease exposure potential. Given the available toxicological data of the metals evaluated, caution is warranted. One should always keep in mind that occupational exposure levels were not developed specifically for nanoscale particles. With data suggesting that certain nanoparticles may be more toxic than the larger counterparts of the same material; employers should attempt to control emissions of these particles at the source, to limit the potential for exposure.

Engineered nanomaterials significantly entered commerce at the beginning of the 21st century. Concerns about serious potential health effects of nanomaterials were widespread. Now, approximately 15 years later, it is worthwhile to take stock of research and efforts to protect nanomaterial workers from potential risks of adverse health effects. This article provides and examines timelines for major functional areas (toxicology, metrology, exposure assessment, engineering controls and personal protective equipment, risk assessment, risk management, medical surveillance, and epidemiology) to identify significant contributions to worker safety and health. The occupational safety and health field has responded effectively to identify gaps in knowledge and practice, but further research is warranted and is described. There is now a greater, if imperfect, understanding of the mechanisms underlying nanoparticle toxicology, hazards to workers, and appropriate controls for nanomaterials, but unified analytical standards and exposure characterization methods are still lacking. The development of control-banding and similar strategies has compensated for incomplete data on exposure and risk, but it is unknown how widely such approaches are being adopted. Although the importance of epidemiologic studies and medical surveillance is recognized, implementation has been slowed by logistical issues. Responsible development of nanotechnology requires protection of workers at all stages of the technological life cycle. In each of the functional areas assessed, progress has been made, but more is required.

Control banding (CB) is a risk management strategy that has been used to identify and recommend exposure control measures to potentially hazardous substances for which toxicological information is limited. The application of CB and level of expertise required for implementation and management can differ depending on knowledge of the hazard potential, the likelihood of exposure, and the ability to verify the effectiveness of exposure control measures. A number of different strategies have been proposed for using CB in workplaces where exposure to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) can occur. However, it is unclear if the use of CB can effectively reduce worker exposure to nanomaterials. A systematic review of studies was conducted to answer the question can control banding be useful to ensure adequate controls for the safe handling of nanomaterials. A variety of databases were searched to identify relevant studies pertaining to CB. Database search terms included control, hazard, exposure, and risk banding as well as the use of these terms in the context of nanotechnology or nanomaterials. Other potentially relevant studies were identified during the review of articles obtained in the systematic review process. Identification of studies and the extraction of data were independently conducted by the reviewers. Quality of the studies was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). A total of 235 records were identified in the database search in which 70 records were determined to be eligible for full-text review. Only two studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated the application of the CB Nanotool in workplaces where ENMs were being handled. A total of 32 different nanomaterial handling activities were evaluated in these studies by comparing the recommended exposure controls using CB to existing exposure controls previously recommended by an industrial hygienist. It was determined that the selection of exposure controls using CB were consistent with those recommended by an industrial hygienist for 19 out of 32 (59.4%) job activities. A higher level of exposure control was recommended for nine out of 32 (28.1%) job activities using CB, while four out of 32 (12.5%) job activities had in-place exposure controls that were more stringent than those recommended using CB. After evaluation using GRADE, evidence indicated that the use of CB Nanotool can recommend exposure controls for many ENM job activities that would be consistent with those recommended by an experienced industrial hygienist. The use of CB for reducing exposures to ENMs has the potential to be an effective risk management strategy when information is limited on the health risk to the nanomaterial and/or there is an absence of an occupational exposure limit. However, there remains a lack of evidence to conclude that the use of CB can provide adequate exposure control in all work environments. Additional validation work is needed to provide more data to support the use of CB for the safe handling of ENMs. 2016, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

The ubiquitous use of engineered nanomaterials - particulate materials measuring approximately 1-100 nanometers (nm) on their smallest axis, intentionally engineered to express novel properties - in semiconductor fabrication poses unique issues for protecting worker health and safety. Use of new substances or substances in a new form may present hazards that have yet to be characterized for their acute or chronic health effects. Uncharacterized or emerging occupational health hazards may exist when there is insufficient validated hazard data available to make a decision on potential hazard and risk to exposed workers under condition of use. To advance the knowledge of potential worker exposure to engineered nanomaterials, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Nanotechnology Field Studies Team conducted an on-site field evaluation in collaboration with on-site researchers at a semiconductor research and development facility on April 18-21, 2011. The Nanomaterial Exposure Assessment Technique (2.0) was used to perform a complete exposure assessment. A combination of filter-based sampling and direct-reading instruments was used to identify, characterize, and quantify the potential for worker inhalation exposure to airborne alumina and amorphous silica nanoparticles associated with the chemical mechanical planarization wafer polishing process. Engineering controls and work practices were evaluated to characterize tasks that might contribute to potential exposures and to assess existing engineering controls. Metal oxide structures were identified in all sampling areas, as individual nanoparticles and agglomerates ranging in size from 60nm to >1,000nm, with varying structure morphology, from long and narrow to compact. Filter-based samples indicated very little aerosolized material in task areas or worker breathing zone. Direct-reading instrument data indicated increased particle counts relative to background in the wastewater treatment area; however, particle counts were very low overall, indicating a well-controlled working environment. Recommendations for employees handling or potentially exposed to engineered nanomaterials include hazard communication, standard operating procedures, conservative ventilation systems, and prevention through design in locations where engineered nanomaterials are used or stored, and routine air sampling for occupational exposure assessment and analysis.

What should industrial hygienists do when the legislative and regulatory process can't keep pace with technology? Our profession is charged with protecting workers and public health. The industrial hygienists' Code of Ethics provides guidance that must be supplemented by new knowledge. If we act only when regulations are issued, we would be doing very little to promote safe and responsible development of the technology. This is especially true for an evolving and rapidly expanding field like nanotechnology. This article reviews current standards of behavior, guidance, regulations, and law related to nanomaterials.

Engineered nanomaterial emission and exposure characterization studies have been completed at more than 60 different facilities by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These experiences have provided NIOSH the opportunity to refine an earlier published technique, the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT 1.0), into a more comprehensive technique for assessing worker and workplace exposures to engineered nanomaterials. This change is reflected in the new name Nanomaterial Exposure Assessment Technique (NEAT 2.0) which distinguishes it from NEAT 1.0. NEAT 2.0 places a stronger emphasis on time-integrated, filter-based sampling (i.e., elemental mass analysis and particle morphology) in the worker's breathing zone (full shift and task specific) and area samples to develop job exposure matrices. NEAT 2.0 includes a comprehensive assessment of emissions at processes and job tasks, using direct-reading instruments (i.e., particle counters) in data-logging mode to better understand peak emission periods. Evaluation of worker practices, ventilation efficacy, and other engineering exposure control systems and risk management strategies serve to allow for a comprehensive exposure assessment.

A concerted effort is being made to insert Prevention through Design principles into discussions of sustainability, occupational safety and health, and green chemistry related to nanotechnology. Prevention through Design is a set of principles, which includes solutions to design out potential hazards in nanomanufacturing including the design of nanomaterials, and strategies to eliminate exposures and minimize risks that may be related to the manufacturing processes and equipment at various stages of the lifecycle of an engineered nanomaterial.

Exposure to engineered nanomaterials (substances with at least one dimension of 1-100 nm) has been of increased interest, with the recent growth in production and use of nanomaterials worldwide. Various organizations have recommended methods to minimize exposure to engineered nanomaterials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate available data to examine the extent to which studied U.S. companies (which represent a small fraction of all companies using certain forms of engineered nanomaterials) follow the guidelines for reducing occupational exposures to engineered nanomaterials that have been issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and other organizations. Survey data, field reports, and field notes for all NIOSH nanomaterial exposure assessments conducted between 2006 and 2011 were collected and reviewed to: (1) determine the level of adoption of precautionary guidance on engineering controls and personal protective equipment, and (2) evaluate the reliability of companies' self-reported use of engineering controls and personal protective equipment. Use of personal protective equipment was observed among 89% [95% confidence interval (CI): 76%-96%] of 46 visited companies, and use of containment-based engineering controls for at least some processes was observed among 83% (95% CI: 76%-96%). In on-site evaluations, more than 90% of the 16 engineered carbonaceous nanomaterial companies that responded to an industrywide survey were observed to be using engineering controls and personal protective equipment as reported or more stringently than reported. Since personal protective equipment use was slightly more prevalent than engineering controls, better communication may be necessary to reinforce the importance of the hierarchy of controls. These findings may also be useful in conducting exposure assessment and epidemiologic research among U.S. workers handling nanomaterials.

The use of cellulose as building blocks for the development of novel functional materials is rapidly growing. Cellulose nanocrystals (CNC), with advantageous chemical and mechanical properties, have gained prominence in a number of applications, such as in nanofillers in polymer composites, building materials, cosmetics, food, and the drug industry. Therefore, it becomes critical to evaluate the potential health effects associated with CNC exposures. The objective of this study was to compare pulmonary outcomes caused by exposure of C57BL/6 mice to two different processed forms of CNC derived from wood, i.e., CNCS (10 wt %; gel/suspension) and CNCP (powder), and compare to asbestos induced responses. Pharyngeal aspiration with CNCS and CNCP was found to facilitate innate inflammatory response assessed by an increase in leukocytes and eosinophils recovered by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). Biomarkers of tissue damage were elevated to a higher extent in mice exposed to CNCP. Compared to CNCP, CNCS caused a significant increase in the accumulation of oxidatively modified proteins. The up-regulation of inflammatory cytokines was higher in the lungs after CNCS treatments. Most importantly, CNCP materials were significantly longer than CNCS. Taken together, our data suggests that particle morphology and nanosize dimensions of CNCs, regardless of the same source, may be critical factors affecting the type of innate immune inflammatory responses. Because various processes have been developed for producing highly sophisticated nanocellulose materials, detailed assessment of specific health outcomes with respect to their physical-structural-chemical properties is highly warranted.

Organizations around the world have called for the responsible development of nanotechnology. The goals of this approach are to emphasize the importance of considering and controlling the potential adverse impacts of nanotechnology in order to develop its capabilities and benefits. A primary area of concern is the potential adverse impact on workers, since they are the first people in society who are exposed to the potential hazards of nanotechnology. Occupational safety and health criteria for defining what constitutes responsible development of nanotechnology are needed. This article presents five criterion actions that should be practiced by decision-makers at the business and societal levels-if nanotechnology is to be developed responsibly. These include (1) anticipate, identify, and track potentially hazardous nanomaterials in the workplace; (2) assess workers' exposures to nanomaterials; (3) assess and communicate hazards and risks to workers; (4) manage occupational safety and health risks; and (5) foster the safe development of nanotechnology and realization of its societal and commercial benefits. All these criteria are necessary for responsible development to occur. Since it is early in the commercialization of nanotechnology, there are still many unknowns and concerns about nanomaterials. Therefore, it is prudent to treat them as potentially hazardous until sufficient toxicology, and exposure data are gathered for nanomaterial-specific hazard and risk assessments. In this emergent period, it is necessary to be clear about the extent of uncertainty and the need for prudent actions.

Occupational exposure to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) is considered a new and challenging occurrence. Preliminary information from laboratory studies indicates that workers exposed to some kinds of ENMs could be at risk of adverse health effects. To protect the nanomaterial workforce, a precautionary risk management approach is warranted and given the newness of ENMs and emergence of nanotechnology, a naturalistic view of risk management is useful. Employers have the primary responsibility for providing a safe and healthy workplace. This is achieved by identifying and managing risks which include recognition of hazards, assessing exposures, characterizing actual risk, and implementing measures to control those risks. Following traditional risk management models for nanomaterials is challenging because of uncertainties about the nature of hazards, issues in exposure assessment, questions about appropriate control methods, and lack of occupational exposure limits (OELs) or nano-specific regulations. In the absence of OELs specific for nanomaterials, a precautionary approach has been recommended in many countries. The precautionary approach entails minimizing exposures by using engineering controls and personal protective equipment (PPE). Generally, risk management utilizes the hierarchy of controls. Ideally, risk management for nanomaterials should be part of an enterprise-wide risk management program or system and this should include both risk control and a medical surveillance program that assesses the frequency of adverse effects among groups of workers exposed to nanomaterials. In some cases, the medical surveillance could include medical screening of individual workers to detect early signs of work-related illnesses. All medical surveillance should be used to assess the effectiveness of risk management; however, medical surveillance should be considered as a second line of defense to ensure that implemented risk management practices are effective.

With increasing numbers and quantities of chemicals in commerce and use, scientific attention continues to focus on the environmental and public health consequences of chemical production processes and exposures. Concerns about environmental stewardship have been gaining broader traction through emphases on sustainability and "green chemistry" principles. Occupational safety and health has not been fully promoted as a component of environmental sustainability. However, there is a natural convergence of green chemistry/sustainability and occupational safety and health efforts. Addressing both together can have a synergistic effect. Failure to promote this convergence could lead to increasing worker hazards and lack of support for sustainability efforts. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has made a concerted effort involving multiple stakeholders to anticipate and identify potential hazards associated with sustainable practices and green jobs for workers. Examples of potential hazards are presented in case studies with suggested solutions such as implementing the hierarchy of controls and prevention through design principles in green chemistry and green building practices. Practical considerations and strategies for green chemistry, and environmental stewardship could benefit from the incorporation of occupational safety and health concepts which in turn protect affected workers.

Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) provide employers, employees, emergency responders, and the general public with basic information about the hazards associated with chemicals that are used in the workplace and are a part of every-day commerce. They are a primary information resource used by health, safety, and environmental professionals in communicating the hazards of chemicals and in making risk management decisions. Engineered nanomaterials represent a growing class of materials being manufactured and introduced into multiple business sectors. MSDSs were obtained from a total of 44 manufacturers using Internet search engines, and a simple ranking scheme was developed to evaluate the content of the data sheets. The MSDSs were reviewed using the ranking scheme, and categorized on the quality and completeness of information as it pertains to hazard identification, exposure controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), and toxicological information being communicated about the engineered nanomaterial. The ranking scheme used to evaluate the MSDSs for engineered nanomaterials was based on the determination that the data sheet should include information on specific physical properties, including particle size or particle size distribution, and physical form; specific toxicological and health effects; and protective measures that can be taken to control potential exposures. The first MSDSs for nanomaterials began to appear around 2006, so these were collected in the time period of 2007-2008. Comparison of MSDSs and changes over time were evaluated as MSDSs were obtained again in 2010-2011. The majority (67%) of the MSDSs obtained in 2010-2011 still provided insufficient data for communicating the potential hazards of engineered nanomaterials.

Given the almost limitless variety of nanomaterials, it will be virtually impossible to assess the possible occupational health hazard of each nanomaterial individually. The development of science-based hazard and risk categories for nanomaterials is needed for decision-making about exposure control practices in the workplace. A possible strategy would be to select representative (benchmark) materials from various mode of action (MOA) classes, evaluate the hazard and develop risk estimates, and then apply a systematic comparison of new nanomaterials with the benchmark materials in the same MOA class. Poorly soluble particles are used here as an example to illustrate quantitative risk assessment methods for possible benchmark particles and occupational exposure control groups, given mode of action and relative toxicity. Linking such benchmark particles to specific exposure control bands would facilitate the translation of health hazard and quantitative risk information to the development of effective exposure control practices in the workplace. A key challenge is obtaining sufficient dose-response data, based on standard testing, to systematically evaluate the nanomaterials' physical-chemical factors influencing their biological activity. Categorization processes involve both science-based analyses and default assumptions in the absence of substance-specific information. Utilizing data and information from related materials may facilitate initial determinations of exposure control systems for nanomaterials. (2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA).)

In early 2006, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health created a field research team whose mission is to visit a variety of facilities engaged in the production, handling, or use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) and to conduct initial emission and exposure assessments to identify candidate sites for further study. To conduct the assessments, the team developed the Nanoparticle Emission Assessment Technique (NEAT), which has been used at numerous facilities to sample multiple engineered nanomaterials. Data collected at four facilities, which volunteered to serve as test sites, indicate that specific tasks can release ENMs to the workplace atmosphere and that traditional controls such as ventilation can be used to limit exposure. Metrics such as particle number concentration (adjusted for background), airborne mass concentration, and qualitative transmission electron microscopy were used to determine the presence, nature, and magnitude of emissions and whether engineered nanomaterials migrated to the workers' breathing zone. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resource: a PDF file containing information on facilities, a description of processes/tasks, existing controls, and sampling strategy, and a PDF file containing TEM images according to facility and task.].

In the last decade since the rise in occupational safety and health (OSH) research focusing on nanomaterials, some progress has been made in generating the health effects and exposure data needed to perform risk assessment and develop risk management guidance. Yet, substantial research gaps remain, as do challenges in the translation of these research findings to OSH guidance and workplace practice. Risk assessment is a process that integrates the hazard, exposure, and dose-response data to characterize risk in a population (e.g. workers), in order to provide health information needed for risk management decision-making. Thus, the research priorities for risk assessment are those studies that will reduce the uncertainty in the key factors that influence the estimates. Current knowledge of OSH in nanotechnology includes the following: (i) nanomaterials can be measured using standard measurement methods (respirable mass or number concentration), (ii) workplace exposures to nanomaterials can be reduced using engineering controls and personal protective equipment, and (iii) current toxicity testing and risk assessment methods are applicable to nanomaterials. Yet, to ensure protection of workers' health, research is still needed to develop (i) sensitive and quantitative measures of workers' exposure to nanomaterials, (ii) validation methods for exposure controls, and (iii) standardized criteria to categorize hazard data, including better prediction of chronic effects. This article provides a state-of-the-art overview on translating current hazard research data and risk assessment methods for nanomaterials to the development and implementation of effective risk management guidance.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted an initial, task-based comparative assessment to determine the potential for release of carbon nanofibers (CNFs) during dry material handling, wet cutting, grinding, and sanding (by machine and hand) of plastic composite material containing CNFs. Using a combination of direct-reading instruments and filter-based air sampling methods for airborne mass and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), concentrations were measured and characterized near sources of particle generation, in the breathing zone of the workers, and in the general work area. Tasks such as surface grinding of composite material and manually transferring dry CNFs produced substantial increases in particle number concentration (range = 20,000-490,000 1-cm(-3)). Concomitant increases in mass concentration were also associated with most tasks. Nearly 90% of all samples examined via TEM indicated that releases of CNFs do occur and that the potential for exposure exists. These findings also indicate that improperly designed, maintained, or installed engineering controls may not be completely effective in controlling releases. Unprotected skin exposure to CNFs was noted in two instances and indicated the need for educating workers on the need for personal protective equipment. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resource: a PDF file containing information on materials, evaluated processes, personal protective equipment, and existing ventilation/engineering controls.].

There is still uncertainty about the potential health hazards of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) particularly involving carcinogenicity. However, the evidence is growing that some types of CNTs and nanofibers may have carcinogenic properties. The critical question is that while the carcinogenic potential of CNTs is being further investigated, what steps should be taken to protect workers who face exposure to CNTs, current and future, if CNTs are ultimately found to be carcinogenic? This paper addresses five areas to help focus action to protect workers: (i) review of the current evidence on the carcinogenic potential of CNTs; (ii) role of physical and chemical properties related to cancer development; (iii) CNT doses associated with genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo; (iv) workplace exposures to CNT; and (v) specific risk management actions needed to protect workers. (Am. J. Ind. Med. Published 2012. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

This article describes a highly tailorable exposure assessment strategy for nanomaterials that enables effective and efficient exposure management (i.e., a strategy that can identify jobs or tasks that have clearly unacceptable exposures), while simultaneously requiring only a modest level of resources to conduct. The strategy is based on strategy general framework from AIHA(R) that is adapted for nanomaterials and seeks to ensure that the risks to workers handling nanomaterials are being managed properly. The strategy relies on a general framework as the basic foundation while building and elaborating on elements essential to an effective and efficient strategy to arrive at decisions based on collecting and interpreting available information. This article provides useful guidance on conducting workplace characterization; understanding exposure potential to nanomaterials; accounting methods for background aerosols; constructing SEGs; and selecting appropriate instrumentation for monitoring, providing appropriate choice of exposure limits, and describing criteria by which exposure management decisions should be made. The article is intended to be a practical guide for industrial hygienists for managing engineered nanomaterial risks in their workplaces.

A number of reports have been published regarding the applicability of existing regulatory frameworks to protect consumers and the environment from potentially adverse effects related to introduction of nanomaterials into commerce in the United States and the European Union. However, a detailed comparison of the regulatory approaches to worker safety and health in the USA and in the EU is lacking. This report aims to fill this gap by reviewing regulatory frameworks designed to protect workers and their possible application to nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology exploits the fact that nanoparticles exhibit unique physicochemical properties, which are distinct from fine-sized particles of the same composition. It follows that nanoparticles may also express distinct bioactivity and unique interactions with biological systems. Therefore, it is essential to assess the potential health risks of exposure to nanoparticles to allow development and implementation of prevention measures. Risk assessment requires data concerning hazard and exposure. Several challenges face the field of nanotoxicology in obtaining the necessary data for assessment of the bioactivity of nanoparticles. They include: (1) the vast number of nanoparticle types to be evaluated, (2) the need to use nanoparticle doses and structure sizes in cellular and animal test systems which are relevant to anticipated workplace exposures, and (3) artifactual in vitro results due to absorption of nutrients or assay indicator compounds from the culture media. This 'opinion' reviews the progress made in the field of nanotoxicology in recent years to overcome these challenges. Copyright (c) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Assessing the need for and effectiveness of controlling airborne exposures to engineered nanomaterials in the workplace is difficult in the absence of occupational exposure limits (OELs). At present, there are practically no OELs specific to nanomaterials that have been adopted or promulgated by authoritative standards and guidance organizations. The vast heterogeneity of nanomaterials limits the number of specific OELs that are likely to be developed in the near future, but OELs could be developed more expeditiously for nanomaterials by applying dose–response data generated from animal studies for specific nanoparticles across categories of nanomaterials with similar properties and modes of action. This article reviews the history, context, and approaches for developing OELs for particles in general and nanoparticles in particular. Examples of approaches for developing OELs for titanium dioxide and carbon nanotubes are presented and interim OELs from various organizations for some nanomaterials are discussed. When adequate dose–response data are available in animals or humans, quantitative risk assessment methods can provide estimates of adverse health risk of nanomaterials in workers and, in conjunction with workplace exposure and control data, provide a basis for determining appropriate exposure limits. In the absence of adequate quantitative data, qualitative approaches to hazard assessment, exposure control, and safe work practices are prudent measures to reduce hazards in workers.